Standing Committee A

[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]

Police Reform Bill [Lords]

Clause 3 - Powers to require inspection and report

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 112, in page 3, line 33, after 'time', insert
'subject to giving at least eight weeks prior notice to the relevant police force, service or squad and the inspectors of constabulary'.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 113, in page 4, line 3, after 'time', insert
'subject to giving at least eight weeks prior notice to the relevant police service and the inspectors of constabulary'.

Nick Hawkins: Unlike those that we debated before lunch, amendments Nos. 112 and 113 are not merely probing amendments. They deal with important matters of substance. Opposition and Labour Members agree that inspectors of constabulary should have powers to carry out inspections. We do not have a problem with the general principle of the clause. Indeed, the arrangements for inspectors of constabulary have been well established for many years. However, given the Government's proposed extension of the powers under the Police Act 1996, we want scope for those who are to be inspected to receive warning.
 We do not want a force to be taken completely by surprise. It has not been the tradition of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for it to behave like an emergency hit squad and carry out dawn raids. For many generations, this country has had a high standard of policing. I am sure that that is agreed throughout the House, as is the fact that HMIC has a high status. Those who have held office in the inspectorate have been people of exceptionally high calibre. I have dealt with them through my work as a barrister for many years in the midlands and subsequently my work as a Member of Parliament, and I pay tribute to their work. 
 We must be aware that police forces have heavy commitments. The same applies in spades to people who undertake the important work of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. I recently had a meeting with the director of NCS, Bill Hughes, so I am especially up to date with its work. I hope to visit NCIS soon. It seems entirely appropriate that, if bodies with important responsibilities are to be inspected, they should have an opportunity to prepare for that inspection. 
 I wish to draw a parallel with that from another area of public life. If a school is to be on the receiving end of an Ofsted inspection, the head teacher and governing body are given several weeks' notice of that 
 inspection. They are told when the inspection will take place and they have an opportunity to prepare for it. The inspection will be of more value if there has been an opportunity to prepare the ground to ensure that the inspectors see what they need to see. A warning will not enable a force to hide anything, but will give the inspectors an opportunity to do their job properly. The Minister may say that, as a matter of practice, the inspectors will give warning of an inspection. That has been so in the past, so why should such a provision not be outlined in the Bill? 
 During our researches for the Committee stage of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) came across an interesting document from Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, Sir David O'Dowd CBE, QPM, CIMgt. In the foreword to his report of March 2001, he says: 
''HM Inspectorate of Constabulary has a statutory role to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces; recently, our remit was extended to encompass the inspection of best value reviews''.
 We may return to the question of whether ''best value reviews'' actually leads to the proper and natural meaning of best value in the English language later in our proceedings. Sir David O'Dowd's most crucial point comes in the last subclause of his sentence: 
''and from April 2001 we have a new role—the inspection of local or basic command units (BCUs).''
 That is interesting. When we debate some of the most crucial divisions between the Government and the Opposition parties on the Bill we shall return to whether the Government's centralising tendency has gone too far, and they are trying to micro-manage down to the basic command unit level. 
 Interestingly, there has been a recent change of practice, which I understand did not require statutory authority. HMIC is going to go down to the basic command unit level. If that is the case, it reinforces our view that there must be a safeguard in terms of timing. Inspections must be detailed and accurate, and a force on the receiving end of an inspection should have prior warning. 
 I will listen with interest to the Minister's response. The amendments have been tabled in a constructively critical spirit because there are serious issues to be discussed.

Bridget Prentice: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He used the example of Ofsted, which informs the head teacher and governing body of a school of an inspection. Why has he not included the police authority in his amendments? That would be the logical extension. I am not encouraging him to go down that route because I do not agree with his argument, but why did he not include it in his basket of people who should be informed?

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Lady makes a good and characteristically helpful point. We did not include the police authority because, knowing how police forces work, we felt that the minute that the force was told, the authority would be informed, but I entirely accept the spirit of her comments. We would be happy if the Government said, ''We are quite happy with the spirit
 of the amendment, and will introduce a Government amendment that includes police authorities''. There is no intention to leave them out, but from my understanding of the various police forces with which I have dealt, both as a parliamentarian and previously, whenever a force is informed, the first thing that the chief constable does is to ring up the chairman of the police authority. The hon. Lady is quite right; we could have included police authorities. I hope that I have covered the serious issues in sufficient depth and I will listen with interest to the Minister's response.

George Osborne: I rise briefly to support the amendments introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and to draw the Committee's attention once again to the evidence of Sir David Phillips, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers to the Select Committee, which the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) will remember. Throughout the Bill, but especially in this clause, there is an overemphasis by the Government on basic command units. He made the point that those units are not complete entities within a police force. They rely on much central revision within a police force. Indeed, when he was asked by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron):
''Is there too much stress on BCUs in what the Government is trying to do in the Bill?''
 Sir David replied: 
''I have suggested to them that perhaps there is. The entity that they need to concentrate on is the police force because essentially BCUs are not independent and the command of the entire police force is with the chief constable.''
 Why does the Minister think that the Home Office is justified in sending an inspection team to a basic command unit? What would that do to undermine the authority of the chief constable of the force if, for example, he did not think that such an action was correct?

Nick Hawkins: I shall reinforce the good point that my hon. Friend is making. He will appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire discovered in the report by Sir David O'Dowd that the change to the inspection of basic command units was announced before the Home Secretary said anything about it and before the Bill becomes law—of course, we do not know the form in which it will become law. We are discussing a significant change. We want to know whether the chief inspector of constabulary is jumping the gun, as I suggested this morning that the Metropolitan police might have done.

George Osborne: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Obviously, this point foreshadows a later debate that we shall have. I wonder how the divisional superintendent in Macclesfield, which is the police division that covers most of my constituency, would react to an inspection team coming in although the chief constable were not wholly happy with that. To whom would she consider that her line of command applied: the Home Office, the inspection team or the chief constable? There is a real danger that if the
 Government go underneath the chief constable's line of command, they will undermine chief constables' responsibilities.

John Denham: On this occasion, Opposition Members may have misunderstood the current position. The amendment does not have particular merit.
 Let us be clear about the current position. As a consequence of the changes that were announced some time ago, a programme of basic command unit inspections is well under way. That complements the inspections of police forces as a whole. I would have to get back to the Committee on the exact number of inspections, but more than 40 have been undertaken and the results have been published. Inspections have been undertaken in Lambeth and Bristol. The inspections are routine and notification of them is given in advance on the same basis as inspections of forces. In recent years, the inspectorate has developed thematic inspections on several issues to examine how similar issues are treated throughout different police forces. 
 Current legislation does not allow the Secretary of State to request the inspection of a force in response to a specific circumstance or worry. I cannot think of a reason why that should be limited to occurring only after an eight-week wait. For example, let us say that the inspectorate carried out an inspection of a basic command unit within a force and discovered that the chief superintendent—that is likely to be the rank—was unable to deliver an effective policing service because of a central direction that came from constabulary headquarters. The chief inspector might report that to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary would like to be able to say, ''You had better have a look at this particular issue.'' He would not necessarily want an inspection of the whole force's activities, which is the basis of the current HMIC programme. I cannot understand what anybody would gain by responding to such circumstances by saying, ''But we will have to wait eight weeks to deal with it.'' That would be an artificial limitation. 
 None of that takes away from the fact that everybody accepts that people would normally be notified in advance of routine force-wide or BCU inspections. Reference was made to Ofsted. However, we would limit flexibility if we accepted the amendment. 
 I shall respond to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). In the police, there is much debate about how much responsibility should be delegated or devolved to BCUs. There are wide variations in the levels of financial responsibility that have been devolved. This is a complex issue, because there can be high levels of devolution in a police force area where there is a strong central framework setting out the aims, objectives and methods of policing, but, on the other hand, in another area, devolution can allow a wide variety of policing methods. Therefore, this matter is not simply about saying, ''We either delegate, or we do not.'' 
 In the police reform White Paper, we set out proposals to take a more structured approach to examining the evidence about which levels of devolution and delegation produce the best policing results. Those proposals are currently being taken forward. 
 Most people in policing recognise that the basic command unit is a key operational part of a force, as its name suggests. There is a value in being able to look at the work of a BCU to see how effectively it is operating, as part of the HMIC inspection programme.

George Osborne: Does the Minister accept that most of the people in the police service who have commented on the legislation have said that the Government are wrong to try to inspect and interfere down at the level of BCU? They might accept that the BCU is a basic command unit—as the name states—but most of them do not accept the Government's argument about this matter.

George Stevenson: Order. The amendment is about giving notice of inspections, rather than the principle of inspections. There will be an opportunity to debate that principle in the clause stand part debate, but I am sure that the Minister will have wanted me to make that point, before he gets back on his feet.

John Denham: We should, perhaps, return to that matter in the clause stand part debate. However, I do not agree with what has been said about it.
 The amendment addresses the part of the clause that allows the Secretary of State to require an inspection by HMIC. With regard to that, currently there is flexibility, and I cannot see why we should artificially impose a period of eight weeks. 
 Practical issues might arise. The HMIC might say that all of its resources are committed and that it does not have sufficient people on the ground to conduct an inspection. That sort of thing would be worked through in practice. There will be circumstances in which there is no need to send somebody in quickly, and it is clear that it is desirable to give notice, where it is appropriate to do so. However, the amendment proposes an artificial restriction.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister said that, under the current system, forces that are to be inspected are routinely notified in advance. How much notice is routinely given?

John Denham: I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman on that. However, I know that it is a considerable period of time because, before the end of a year, I, as the Minister responsible for such matters, receive the HMIC programme for the following 12 months. That indicates the forces and the BCUs that are to be inspected, and the subjects of the thematic inspections. Indeed, discussion has already taken place about the subjects of the thematic inspections for 2003. Therefore, a considerable period of advance notice is given to forces that are to undergo the routine HMIC inspections.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for that response because it appears that he has confirmed that he is notified well in advance—far more than eight
 weeks in advance—and one assumes that police forces and BCUs are also notified well in advance. We chose a period of eight weeks for the amendment because we thought that that was a realistic minimum period and that, in practice, notice might be given as far as three or even six months in advance. I have no doubt that the Minister will write to me and other Committee members about that, when he has received more detailed information.
 HMIC are giving such advance notice under the current system. However, in clause 3, the Government are introducing a new power, which we would say is very much part of their centralising agenda. The argument seems to be that the Secretary of State must have this power in case he is especially concerned about a BCU or a force. The Secretary of State must be able to demand and insist on an inspection. At the level of what we would call attempting to micro-manage, it is even more important that the force on the receiving end should have at the very least eight weeks' notice, or perhaps more, although that is what we have set out as a minimum. 
 If, in some cases, current practice is to give far more than eight weeks' notice, there can be no reason why that period should not be put in the Bill. Surely if a Secretary of State is demanding that, there is every extra reason why our amendment should be accepted. In light of the fact that we think that this is an important matter, I propose to press the amendment to a Division. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 13.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Denham: It is worth drawing the Committee's attention to the inspectorate's evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. It said:
''There is particular support for the widening of the powers of the Secretary of State to require specific inspections. This fits comfortably with HMIC's current practice under risk assessment of targeting our efforts rather than scrutinising the whole of a force.''
 It is probably of advantage to the Committee to know that the inspectorate, which is independent of Government, supports the provision. 
 We discussed, primarily in relation to amendments Nos. 112 and 113, whether there should be a time delay before an inspection takes place, and I shall not go over that again. The other part of the clause allows the inspection required to focus on a particular aspect of the police force. That is because the power to 
 require an inspection is currently linked to wider powers for dealing with the efficiency and effectiveness of the force. Clearly, there is a case for considering a particular aspect of a force's activity. 
 There is little in the Bill specifically about BCUs. There is, as I say, a debate in policing about the degree of delegation. We believe that the BCU is an important part of the command structure of the police service. The responsibilities of chief superintendents, superintendents or commanders who are in charge of BCUs are great, and we wish to strengthen support for them. As we have set out in the White Paper, we are carefully considering how we can establish the most effective levels of devolution to BCUs. There is debate on those issues within the police service. We are convinced that BCUs must be strong and capable, although they must be so within the overall framework set by the force.

Nick Hawkins: We accept what the Minister said about the BCU being a crucial part of how police forces operate. However, we have a huge concern, to which we will return in other debates. I do not want to labour the point now but it is important to put it on the record in the clause 3 stand part debate, given what the Minister has just said. We think that there is a grave misunderstanding on the part of the Government that the man from Whitehall knows best—that a future Home Secretary will be better able to understand what should happen within a BCU—and that his demanding inspections down to BCU level is part and parcel of a huge mistake in the Government's thinking. It is part of Whitehall's attempt to micro-manage. My noble Friend Lord Dixon-Smith said when he successfully introduced amendments to the Bill in another place that his experience during many years of public life led him to the conclusion that the man from Whitehall usually does not know best. I respectfully agree with him. It is unwise for the Government to start thinking it sensible to take powers to intervene down to BCU level. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton rightly said on amendments Nos. 112 and 113, we are greatly concerned that the Government are fundamentally wrong.

Kevan Jones: Is it not the case that those who carry out inspections are not men from Whitehall but former senior officers, many of whom have held chief constable rank or the equivalent? We are not talking about civil servants from the Home Office, but those—certainly those whom I have met—with a lot of experience in operational policing.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is right, and in the previous debate I paid tribute to the people who run and work for HMIC. However, the Government are starting a new trend of the Home Secretary demanding inspection. The Minister made that clear when he responded to amendments Nos. 112 and 113. Never before has there been a power for a Home Secretary to demand an inspection, which is what I meant when I spoke of micro-management from Whitehall. If the matter were left, as it has been in the past, to HMIC, that would be different. The hon.
 Gentleman needs to focus on the change that the Government are making in clause 3.

George Osborne: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is a cause for concern over the BCU it will extend through the police force that manages the division? The inspections should therefore remain at police force level because it will reveal systematic problems with the police force.

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend is right. We have taken that very stance because to start cherry picking the BCUs would lead to all kinds of problems. As my hon. Friend rightly says, if there is a problem with a BCU it could be a symptom of a wider malaise, and the people best able to judge that are the senior people to whom the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) referred—those who have been appointed to HMIC. With the greatest respect to the many distinguished holders of the office of Home Secretary, the Home Secretary, of whichever party, is not best placed to make that judgment. We are worried that the traditional tripartite relationship of policing in this country could suffer if a Home Secretary undermined independent judgment.

Kevan Jones: I find it difficult to understand in which circumstances the Home Secretary could undermine the inspection process. An inspection will not be carried out by the Home Secretary, or by any other politician, but by senior police officers and the inspectorate. How could we arrive at a situation in which a Home Secretary might undermine the inspection?

Nick Hawkins: I do not think that what we are seeking to do here would in any sense undermine inspection. We do not want to repeat the debate that we have just had on amendments Nos. 112 and 113, but the Government must justify the change.

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman started his intervention by talking about the ability to inspect particular parts of police forces, and I set out the logic behind that. He then shifted his argument and said that the Secretary of State should not have the ability to require an inspection to take place, so it is reasonable to ask why the previous Conservative Administration introduced such a power in the 1966 Act.

Nick Hawkins: The difference, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton said, is that something might need to happen for a force as a whole, but at basic command unit level that is a step too far.

John Denham: Many forces have at least four or five basic command units, including a couple of large urban areas and a number of rural areas. If a problem becomes apparent in only one urban area, the hon. Gentleman is saying that he prefers the previous powers, which would require every aspect of the entire force to be involved. The clause allows us to look at where the problem is, which is sensible.
 This goes further than my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham suggests, because in practice BCU inspections are conducted largely by acting BCU commanders working under the supervision of the 
 inspectorate. They are the people who, on either side of their secondment to the inspectorate, actually do the job. Such peer inspection is valued in the police service.

Nick Hawkins: That was a long intervention—almost a speech. Suffice it to say that I do not agree with the Minister, for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. I shall not repeat them, because the point has been sufficiently made. We shall not call for a Division on clause stand part, because we called for one on amendment No. 112, which was the really serious issue. I am prepared to drop the matter at this stage, but I wanted to flag it up because it will be relevant to debates on other clauses. We are seriously concerned about attempts to micro-manage, and this seems to be yet another example of the Government getting it wrong.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Directions to police authorities

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 28, after 'may', insert
', after consulting the police authority responsible for maintaining that force about the remedial measures needed,'.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 130.
 Amendment No. 134, in schedule 1, page 90, line 18, after 'Ministers,' insert 
'and the NCIS Service Authority about the remedial measures needed,'.
 Amendment No. 135 in page 90, line 34, after 'State,', insert 
'and the NCIS Service Authority about the remedial measures needed,'.
 Amendment No. 136, in page 91, line 26, leave out from 'State' to 'as' in line 27 and insert 
', after consulting the NCS Service Authority about the remedial measures needed, may direct that authority to take such measures.'.

Annette Brooke: We are pleased that amendment No. 2 may have provoked Government amendment No. 130. The amendment would provide a layer of consultation with police authorities about the remedial measures necessary for a force that might, unfortunately, be deemed not to be efficient or effective. That would mirror Ofsted, with which one would expect such consultation. As I understand it, Government amendment No. 130 places an obligation on the Secretary of State not to give any direction until there has been consultation and the police authority has been given the opportunity to make representations and proposals for remedial measures. That is important, and we are pleased about it.
 Amendments Nos. 134, 135 and 136 are consequential on Government amendment No. 130. It is right to have equality of treatment not only for police authorities responding to any directions or suggestions from the Secretary of State, but for other national bodies—NCIS and the NCS. I note 
 Government amendment No. 131, which we shall discuss later, but we shall pursue our amendments, because they go further that that. 
 The amendments are important, because they would add an extra layer of consultation about remedial measures. They are more inclusive and entirely match the sentiments expressed in amendment No. 2 and Government amendment No. 130. We want the relevant service authority to have some input right across the board into the improvement of the service, because we believe that there must be a two-way exchange.

Nick Hawkins: Like the hon. Lady, my hon. Friends and I were pleased that the Government responded to amendment No. 2. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I subscribed to it because we were working on the same basis. As the hon. Lady rightly said, Government amendment No. 130 deals with part of the same issue. We support her comments. These are important matters, and she is right to say that we shall come back to related matters when we have the big debate on schedule 1, Government amendment No. 131 and Government new clause 4.
 We support the hon. Lady's thinking. She is right to say that relevant matters are raised by amendments Nos. 134, 135 and 136. It is appropriate that the Government are moving in our direction in Government amendment No. 130, so we shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.

John Denham: Given the suggestions of support for Government amendment No. 130, I shall not detain the Committee too long. However, as we are introducing new material in the Bill, I should probably set out the case for the record.
 Government amendment No. 130 reintroduces safeguards in respect of the power to direct police authorities that were implicitly rejected in another place when it voted to remove the parallel power to direct chief officers. I believe that on that occasion the focus of attention was on what was then clause 5 and the amendment to it. However, the proposals that we have included here were effectively lost at the same time. 
 The power to direct police authorities to take remedial measures to correct underperformance is not new. Clause 4 simply re-enacts, with modifications, section 40 of the Police Act 1996. The power was originally introduced by the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. In putting the case for section 40, I can do no better than quote from the proceedings of the Standing Committee that considered the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. The then Home Office Minister, Charles Wardle, said: 
''New section 28D gives the Home Secretary the power to give directions to a police authority when an inspectorate constabulary has reported that, in his opinion, the relevant police force is, or is about to become, inefficient or ineffective. That aspect involves the power of last resort, which can be exercised only where there is an independent opinion from the inspectorate that the police authority is failing in its fundamental statutory duty to secure the maintenance of an effective and efficient police force for its area.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 24 May 1994; c. 268–269.]
 Clause 4 is not breaking new ground, but section 40 of the 1996 Act as it stands includes few safeguards. We have already introduced a number of such safeguards in another place. New subsection (2) will restrict the direction-making power so that a police authority may only be directed to take remedial measures that are relevant to the shortcomings identified by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. New subsections (3) and (4) will require the Home Secretary to report to Parliament on the exercise of the direction-making power in any given case. 
 Government amendment No. 130 introduces further safeguards to ensure that the power to direct is a power of last resort. It places a duty on the Home Secretary to put to the chief officer and police authority the evidence that a force or part of a force is failing and afford them an opportunity to make representations. The Home Secretary is then placed under a duty to have regard to such representations. 
 If, having considered any representations, the Home Secretary remains of the opinion that remedial measures are required, he must afford the police authority the opportunity to put in place its own remedial measures before it is directed to do so. If the police authority identifies appropriate remedial measures that fully address the area of concern there will be no need for the Home Secretary to issue a formal direction. 
 The amendment also enables further procedural requirements to be set out in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. Before making such regulations, the Home Secretary is required to consult the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities in the usual way. Such regulations would, for example, provide for further consultation with a police authority on the terms of any proposed directions. Those are powerful safeguards that were not included in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. The safeguards built into Government amendment No. 130 effectively supersede the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and moved by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), whom I urge not to press the amendment, because we are introducing the type of consultation that she seeks. 
 Further Government amendments will deal with the other issues raised by amendments Nos. 134 to 137. New clause 4 will introduce a parallel power to direct chief officers that will include a similar set of safeguards. I do not want to pre-empt the debate on new clause 4, but suffice it to say that the power to direct a police authority is not sufficient on its own to tackle underperformance. Police authorities have a variety of mechanisms by which to hold chief officers to account. In the first instance, we shall look to the chief officer in a police authority to address underperformance, but when a police authority has not been successful in working with a chief officer to improve performance, it is our view that the Home 
 Secretary must have the option of directing the person responsible for the control of the force. 
 The revised section 40 and new sections 41A and 41B of the 1996 Act must be seen as a package. Whichever power is used, it should be used only as a last resort after close consultation with the police authority and chief officer concerned. Amendment No. 130 will ensure that that happens.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his comments. As I said, we want to withdraw amendment No. 2. I am heartened by his remarks on amendments Nos. 134, 135 and 136, and I emphasise that those points need to be picked up. I accept that there is some sense in waiting until we debate Government amendment No. 131, and I thank him for his reassurances on balancing the level of direction, because we all want to achieve efficient and effective policing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 137, in page 4, line 30, at end insert—
'(1A) No police force, whether in whole or in part, or generally or in particular respects, shall be regarded as not efficient or not effective or about to cease to be efficient or effective under subsection (1) above, on the grounds that the chief officer has not— 
 (a) designated any persons under section 35 of the Police Reform Act 2002; or 
 (b) established a community safety accreditation scheme under section 36 of the Police Reform Act 2002.'.
 We focus yet again on directions to police authorities, and we want reassurances and safeguards on the extent of those directions. The Minister has already hinted that the point made here may be covered elsewhere in the Bill and in other regulations, and I shall listen to his comments with interest. The amendment is nevertheless important. 
 We keep drawing parallels with Ofsted. The reports might contain strong recommendations on the balance of staffing. We want to ensure that CSOs are not imposed by the back door. We are genuinely concerned that the Bill might allow the Secretary of State—obviously not the current one—to use the power to take remedial measures and empower police authorities to adopt CSO schemes. I feel sure that the Minister will agree, given that he stated so forcefully this morning that there is no intention to force CSO schemes on police authorities. The amendment should be totally acceptable in that context.

Nick Hawkins: We agree with the spirit of the amendment. I agree with the hon. Lady: the matter is very important. She also quite rightly cited what the Minister said before lunch: no police force will be absolutely impelled to go along with the various schemes that the Government are keen on, such as accreditation and CSOs. If that is the case, there is no reason why the Bill should not safeguard that position. We would be very uncomfortable if a chief constable and a police authority were penalised in any way because they felt from their expert knowledge of their area that it was not appropriate to have accreditation or CSOs.
 It is extremely important that something along the lines of amendment No. 137 should be in the Bill. We are not tying ourselves to the particular wording, but we think it would be terribly helpful to have a provision that makes it clear that a force cannot be penalised for not going along with accredited schemes or CSOs. Like the hon. Lady, we will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say, but we consider this an important matter.

John Denham: I shall not bore the Committee by repeating what I have said already about our intentions for CSOs. We need to be careful about the approach taken in the amendments. In debates such as this, a constant refrain asserts that the legislation might be all right as long as I and my colleagues are Ministers, but questions the future. There is equally a danger that an obsession with one issue, however controversial it is at the moment, can lead people to draft bad law and table poorly thought-out amendments. I am afraid that the amendment falls into that category.
 There has been much discussion about CSOs. I had understood that the Opposition parties, at least in another place, welcomed the provisions in part 4 enabling chief officers to designate support staff as detention or escort officers. Forces are already civilianising their custody functions, and the Bill should provide a new impetus for that. We cannot be certain, but it is conceivable that in five years' time, civilian detention or escort officers could well be the norm. 
 If we look to the future, we cannot rule out the possibility that HMIC could undertake an inspection of a force that continued to employ only police officers in its custody suites. If other forces had achieved, for example, a 10 per cent. saving through civilianisation with no loss of effectiveness, the amendment would debar HMIC from commenting on the efficiency with which the police force uses its resources, or the opportunities taken to civilianise detention duties, even if established best practice across the vast majority of forces suggested that that was a good way of freeing up police officers for other duties. That is the practical effect of amendment No. 137. 
Mr. Hawkins rose—

John Denham: The amendment shows the difficulties of focusing in such a narrow-minded way—as in so much of the debate—on one element of the provisions, and trying to rule it out. Effectively, it is an approach that would hamper HMIC in drawing on the experience of good practice. We do not know that it is good practice today—let me make that clear. The use of escort or detention officers in an expanded role is new, so we have to wait until there is some evidence, but clearly there is a possibility that it will be shown to be efficient and effective, and it could be promoted by HMIC.

Nick Hawkins: I am glad that the Minister added his parenthesis, because when I first alerted him to the fact that I wanted to intervene, he had not made it clear that the facts had not been established. I am glad that he has now made that concession. If he is relying on a judgment of what is best practice and what is not, will
 there not always be the danger that a Whitehall judgment may not be accurate?

John Denham: We are talking about HMIC. We have to trust someone. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of arguing himself into a corner. A person who is not from the police force could form an opinion on how it is operating. It has been recognised for an enormously long time that an independent inspectorate is necessary. The inspectorate accumulates a great deal of knowledge from forces throughout the country about what is efficient and effective. As we discussed earlier, its role has been extended under the Government. Far from saying that it is wrong that the inspectorate should be able to form a view about this or other issues, we consider it an important tool in support of the Secretary of State and value the advice that we receive.

Nick Hawkins: We have made clear our enormous admiration for the work of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. We are not seeking to undermine it, but the amendment would protect a force that chooses on the basis of its local judgment not to adopt the particular extra practice of the CSOs and accredited schemes that the Government are introducing. Why should a force be regarded as ineffective or inefficient because it has not adopted such a practice? Surely that matter should best be left to local judgment.

John Denham: We could be discussing traffic wardens in the 1960s. If a force chose to use its police officers to issue parking tickets, instead of traffic wardens, the hon. Gentleman would expect the inspectorate to say that that was ludicrous. We have established best practice throughout the country and we do not want our police officers to undertake such work. We are not in a position to say that it has been proved that the powers that we are introducing will produce efficiency and effectiveness. There is a huge consensus that the powers will achieve that, but that has not been proven on the ground. To say, however, in 2002 that we should introduce primary legislation that would prevent the body of evidence that builds up over the years from being used by the inspectorate to provide advice and make a judgment about efficiency and effectiveness would make bad law out of the current debate about CSOs. I strongly urge the Committee to resist the amendment.

Annette Brooke: There is a fundamental difference between advising on good practice and making that crystal clear, and introducing a power to force local police authorities to take certain action. I am sure that the traffic warden example can be dealt with by advice, guidance, good practice and publicity, without a power being forced on the police. After all, there are circumstances in which police carry out other jobs.

Vera Baird: If the intention is to stop something being forced on the police, is not the amendment misguided? It would stop expert inspectors saying that in a particular part of the Redcar division in, say, Grangetown, the police are not dealing effectively with litter because they do not have CSOs. The amendment would stop that being declared. It may or may not be necessary to direct that the power must be introduced, but the amendment
 would prevent inspectors from considering matters and reaching a decision.

Annette Brooke: The intention of the amendment is to avoid direction and tunnel vision, as much as anything. We want to ensure that a judgment is not made about deficiency or ineffectiveness simply on the grounds that the chief constable has not adopted a CSO scheme. If we examined a broader range of targets and outcomes, the point made by the hon. and learned Lady would be answered.
 The adoption of CSOs must be voluntary and not in any way under duress from the Secretary of State. That is the bottom line. When I hear the justification from the Government it makes me increasingly nervous that the CSOs will be imposed. I endorse what Conservative Members have said. Although we generally welcome the Government amendments, my hon. Friend and I would like to press our amendment to a vote. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in page 4, leave out lines 34 and 35.
 The amount of power taken unto the Secretary of State in the Bill is the issue that separates Opposition parties from the Government. I apologise to the Committee for my short absence, and the point may already have been made, but clause 4 revises section 40 of the 1996 Act and describes powers to give directions to a police authority. 
 Section 40 has never been used, despite the Act's being in existence for the past six years. The existing power has not been used by the Home Secretary in the previous Conservative Government, who was in office for only a few short months after the legislation was enacted, by the present Home Secretary or by his predecessor. Why do we need the dramatically increased range of powers envisaged in clause 4, and especially subsection (2)(b), which the amendment would delete? 
 There can be no reasonable argument against the idea of the inspectorate producing a report identifying the strengths and weaknesses in a police authority or BCU, as the clause envisages, or suggesting that measures be taken to remedy those problems. With that there can be little dispute. The dispute is over whether the Home Secretary has complete freedom to 
 dictate what the remedial measures should be. Subsection (2) says that 
''Those remedial measures must not relate to any matter other than''—
 and the first bit is non-contentious— 
''a matter by reference to which the report contains a statement of opinion falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b)''.
 That is perfectly sensible; the remedial measures should address what the report says. The problem is that paragraph (b) follows, which says that the measures must also not relate to anything other than 
''a matter that the Secretary of State considers relevant to any matter falling within paragraph (a).''
 That gives the Secretary of State carte blanche to consider any matter relevant to the measures on which the inspector has passed opinion. 
 I have taken the liberty of looking at one or two HMIC reports. They are comprehensive, and it beggars belief that it should be necessary for the Home Secretary to have powers to go beyond what is in the report. I shall refer to two examples, both of which are relevant to members of the Committee. First, I shall quote the report of Hampshire constabulary's latest inspection—the latest one on the inspectorate's website, anyway—which was in 1999. That, of course, is the Minister's constabulary.

John Denham: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the most recent Hampshire constabulary report on the inspectorate's website is from 1999?

James Paice: Yes.

John Denham: I shall have to have a look at the website.

James Paice: I take it from that that there has been a more recent inspection, but whether that is the most recent report is irrelevant to my argument. The fact is that it contains a series of recommendations, one of which is
''That the Force considers how to co-ordinate pre-existing projects, on the Force control room, on systems of core handling and on public safety radio communication. In so doing it should review the timescale for selecting the preferred option arising from the core handling project and match its implementation with the move to a single tier control room.''
 That is a pretty detailed obligation on, or recommendation from, the inspectorate, and I should have thought that it was perfectly adequate as an issue on which the Secretary of State should require remedial measures to be taken. However, the Bill proposes that the Secretary of State should have powers to include anything else that he considers relevant. I find that prospect difficult to understand. 
 Secondly, I shall quote a report from my own constabulary. It is a report on a BCU inspection—I tried to get even closer to the ground—in the central Cambridgeshire unit, which only just touches my constituency but is obviously relevant. Its recommendations are even more detailed. For example, it asks that 
''The existing arrangements in respect of custody facilities at Wisbech police station be urgently reviewed.''
 Wisbech is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). Such recommendations are the minutiae of policing issues. I am not suggesting that the recommendation is not important—it is, particularly if one is taken into custody in Wisbech. My point is, why should the Secretary of State have powers that allow him to go beyond even the recommendations in BCU reports? That is why I believe it necessary to delete subsection (2)(b). 
 The case is quite clear: the provision is an open-ended opportunity for the Home Secretary to decide of his own volition what he considers to be relevant. There is no challenge to that, and no opportunity for people to appeal against what he considers to be relevant. It would provide a Home Secretary—not necessarily this one—with an opportunity to get involved in minutiae. That is unnecessary and may carry a risk when the power falls into the hands of future Secretaries of State.

John Denham: The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has conjured up a worrying prospect, but let us consider the issue.
 There are two parts to the process. First, HMIC conducts an inspection; secondly, the Secretary of State directs a response. The proposed change from the previous section 40—which I think that the Committee will agree to—is that the inspectorate should be able to report on part of a force, rather than only on all of it. Perhaps one of the reasons why the intervention power has never been used is that a very high threshold must be reached before a whole force is deemed to be failing. 
 However, to leave that aside, we are currently debating a different question—what powers to direct should the Secretary of State have? It is always dangerous for Ministers who are on their feet to offer to consider amendments, but I am half-inclined—I will go no further than that—to suggest that we should remove all of subsection (2) of new section 40, and revert to the wording that was used by the previous Conservative Administration. I assume that hon. Members are happy with that wording. It states: 
''the Secretary of State may direct the police authority responsible for maintaining the force to take such measures as may be specified in the direction.''
 Section 40 does not require the matters on which the Secretary of State gives directions to bear any relation whatever to the issues that have been identified by HMIC. The new draft was produced because I felt—although, perhaps, I got this wrong—that that was too broad a remit to give to the Secretary of State, and that there should be some relationship between what the Secretary of State responds to and the problem that has been identified by HMIC. 
 However, if the Committee has a problem with the new wording, I shall consider reverting to the wording introduced by the Conservative party in the previous Parliament. I am sure that Conservative Committee members would accept that. 
 However, there is a reason why we have structured what we have done in this way. Although the 
 inspectorate reports are very detailed and comprehensive, it is always conceivable that, when a problem has been identified by the inspectorate, further matters will come to light that are relevant and should be taken into account. 
 For example, if HMIC criticised a force for consistently slipping with regard to the burglary target that it has been set under best value, it would set out its recommendations in its report on the force, and the Home Secretary could use that, by employing new section 40(2)(a), as the basis for issuing directions against the police authority. He could do that because the police authority owns the best value targets for the police force. The HMIC report might identify—in the way that the hon. Gentleman said—that the force was failing to meet its target because it was failing to offer decent prevention advice, and because its investigative techniques did not follow proven best practice. Under the amendment, the Home Secretary could only direct the police authority to require action to be taken to put right policing practice in those two areas—prevention and investigative techniques. 
 However, let us suppose that the CPS inspectorate was looking at performance in this area at the same time, and, having studied the work of CPS, it advised that the force had poor file quality and, as a result, there was a failure successfully to prosecute persistent offenders in the area, so that they were free to re-offend. Any sensible person would say that the Home Secretary should be able to take into account that wider source of evidence, which is relevant to the problem identified by HMIC. 
 In practical terms, I do not think that it is possible to specify in the Bill all the conceivable sources of additional evidence that might be available to the Home Secretary. That is why new section 40(2) is worded in this way. However, if the hon. Gentleman would prefer us to revert to the wide-ranging powers of the Secretary of State that were introduced by the Conservative Government, I shall give active consideration to that before Report.

James Paice: Well, that is a tempting offer. However, as the Minister knows, the world has moved on a little bit since 1996, otherwise we would not be having this debate because the Government would have left the legislation as it is. We have moved on, but I remain of the view that the envisaged powers and those that are in existing legislation are over the top and go beyond what is necessary. I am not entirely convinced by the Minister's technical example of why he believes that the powers are necessary.
 We must reflect on what the Minister said and I want to read his technical explanation to try to understand it more clearly. We might wish to return to the matter on another occasion. I want to know what the Minister's colleagues said in opposition to the clause in 1996—we might well find something of interest to entertain the Committee. Until we reach that stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 114, in page 4, line 45, at end insert—
'(4A) A report under subsection (3) shall set out fully the increased costs to public funds which will be required to make the police force or any part concerned efficient and effective and the full costs of any remedial measures recommended.'.
 This is a matter of substance and not merely a probing amendment. I said before lunch that we would return to the issues of what the Government often refer to as so-called best value. The chief officers of my police authority in Surrey and the two local authorities in my constituency think that the current practice is very far from the normal and natural meaning in English language of ''best value''. They have found that the so-called best-value procedures have been incredibly expensive and have served no good purpose. 
 I suggest that the requirement that we propose in the amendment represents plain common sense. It is rather akin to the compliance cost assessment that is required in every statute. We must be able to know what it will cost to make things work. We should always have a weather eye on the cost to taxpayers of what is proposed. Nevertheless, when one knows the cost of something, it might still be the right thing to do. I do not suggest that something that would genuinely make a force efficient and effective should not be done because it is expensive. We want efficient and effective police forces. One should always be aware of costs so that value judgments can be made. 
 There are occasions when a marginal improvement would be very expensive. One could say that because a force is pretty effective, it is not worth while to spend a huge amount of taxpayers' money of the sort that was wasted on the dome or Wembley—as the House heard today—for only a marginal improvement. We must always be careful to examine costs, and I hope that we shall hear a constructive response from the Minister. I accept that the Minister may say that that would not be a good way in which to do it, and that the Government will bring forward Government amendments at a later stage to incorporate the concept, and if he were to say that we would listen to him. It is important, however, that the report should have a compliance cost assessment in it whenever such things are contemplated.

John Denham: We can take the amendment as a covert attempt to make the Home Office responsible for the costs that may be incurred by saying that a police force should do things differently. Let us remember, however, the basis on which the provision will work. From the outset, a police authority is funded to maintain an efficient and effective police force. Direction-making powers, including those introduced by the previous Administration, exist for use when a police authority fails to maintain an efficient and effective police force. That is wholly separate from a situation in which the Government may decide that a police authority should do something. In the spending review 2000, for example, we decided that there needed to be a greater focus on rural policing, and we introduced an additional £15 million of funding, which was allocated to forces according to how sparsely their areas were populated.
 If a police authority fails to use its resources effectively and has to invest extra money in order to correct its own failings, that is its responsibility and it should be accountable to the local communities that it serves. The amendment is misplaced and does not build on the purpose of either the HMIC inspection or the direction-making powers that we, and the previous Government, have framed.

Nick Hawkins: I am not wholly convinced by the Minister's comments. He started off by saying that the amendment is a covert attempt to make the Home Office pay for the costs of the measure. If it were such an attempt, I am not sure whether it would be covert.
 In the time of the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), there was a problem in my county when the previous Home Secretary, who is now the Foreign Secretary, decided that Senator Pinochet should be placed under house arrest. The former Home Secretary went on television and said that the costs of the house arrest would not fall on Surrey police or the council tax payers of Surrey, but would come out of Home Office funds. Unfortunately, it did not turn out that way. The total cost of that policing operation was £1.1 million, but the Home Office reimbursed Surrey police only £600,000. People in my area were very unhappy, and all the Surrey MPs went to see the former Home Secretary. We managed to get an extra £200,000 out of him, but we did not get the full cost. The Minister thinks that the amendment is a covert attempt to make the Home Office pay for things, but if we wanted that we would do it overtly. 
 That is not the point, which, with respect, the Minister has slightly missed. Even if a local police authority has to pay, Parliament and taxpayers are entitled to know the cost. There is always the question of who judges what is efficient or effective. I am not sure that my judgment of what is efficient or effective would always be same as that of the previous Home Secretary or, indeed, the current Home Secretary. Of course, the current Home Secretary has spent most of his time in office dismantling all the things that the previous Home Secretary did to such an extent that the press has described his actions as dismantling the house the Jack built. 
 I revert to what I said in moving the amendment. We want to see the text in the Bill. That may be a matter to which we return on Report, but at this stage I do not propose to press it to a vote. Before withdrawing the amendment, I hope that I can ask the Minister to reflect carefully. The amendment is not a covert attempt to make the Home Office pay. It is about transparency, and everyone being aware of the cost to public funds of such reports. I hope that the Minister will seriously reflect on that, and may be prepared to table Government amendments to similar effect. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 130, in page 4, line 45, at end insert— 
'(5) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction under this section in relation to any police force unless— 
 (a) the police authority maintaining that force and the chief officer of that force have each been given such information about the Secretary of State's grounds for proposing to give that direction as he considers appropriate for enabling them to make representations or proposals under the following paragraphs of this subsection; 
 (b) that police authority and chief officer have each been given an opportunity of making representations about those grounds; 
 (c) that police authority has had an opportunity of making proposals for the taking of remedial measures that would make the giving of the direction unnecessary; and 
 (d) the Secretary of State has considered any such representations and any such proposals. 
 (6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision as to the procedure to be followed in cases where a proposal is made for the giving of a direction under this section. 
 (7) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with— 
 (a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities; 
 (b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and 
 (c) such other persons as he thinks fit. 
 (8) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases and circumstances. 
 (9) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'' '.—[Mr. Denham.]
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Vera Baird: I want to raise a minor drafting point of the kind that will lead the Minister to regret having lawyers on the Back Benches. I do not suppose that anyone who is not an expert in reading legislation will actually read this clause, but if they did, they might hesitate at subsection (2). At the moment it says:
''Those remedial measures must not relate to any matter other than (a) . . . or (b)''.
 Is there any good reason why it does not just say that those remedial measures may relate only to (a) and (b)? That is infinitely easier to read, more straightforward and easier to follow.

George Stevenson: If there is not any good reason for it to be worded that way at the moment, I am that sure someone will find one. The point is well taken.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Regulation of equipment

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 138, in page 5, line 48, after 'vehicles', insert—
'(aa) batons, CS spray devices and other items used for public order control'.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 79, in page 6, line 1, at end insert—
'(c) information and communication equipment.'.

Annette Brooke: Under the clause, the Secretary of State can make regulations for the use of equipment in order to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of
 police forces. As we know, he must consult the police chiefs and police authority groups, and have any regulations approved by Parliament. However, the current clause stipulates only vehicles and protective clothing as equipment. I suppose it is slightly odd for the Liberal Democrats to argue for more centralised control, but I shall force myself to do it. We would like to pinpoint the equipment that might be the subject of the Secretary of State's rules and regulations, not to impose uniformity of approach, but, in terms of the devices, to make an argument for some sort of national standard, whether we are talking about the dimensions of a baton or CS sprays—pepper sprays have been mentioned. Such things are either safe or are they are not.
 Our amendment may not be accurately worded, but I should like the Minister to take the spirit of our points on board. The clause could quite genuinely work towards the efficiency and effectiveness of the police force by setting standards for the sort of items that might be used for public order control. The amendment is intended to make the clause more specific, and force the Secretary of State to consult relevant groups and obtain the backing of Parliament before making regulations relating to defensive weapons, on which so much relies. Our final point is that we want the police to have absolute faith in the equipment that they use.

Kevan Jones: The amendment is just another example of Liberal Democrat double-speak. Earlier amendments suggested that things should be left to local police authorities, but this amendment would extend national standards to include extra devices; the list could be further added to.

Annette Brooke: I thought that I had explained why there appeared to be an inconsistency—I made a joke against us about that. I am going on holiday and will travel on an aeroplane on Monday, so I am certainly pleased that national standards will be applied. For much equipment, it makes sense to have approved national standards; for example, it gives a sense of certainty on what can be used for crowd control. When one considers crowd control in different parts of the country and in different circumstances, an awful lot can be said for having consistent standards.

James Paice: Amendment No. 79 is probing because I am perplexed by one aspect of the clause, which will replace subsections (2) and (3) of section 53 of the 1996 Act. Other hon. Members might have discovered, as I did, that those subsections did not exist in 1996, but were added in 1997. Importantly, section 131(2) of the Police Act 1997 states:
''The Secretary of State shall consult the Police Information Technology Organisation before making regulations under this section relating to information technology.''
 I realise that things have moved on, and that we now have Airwave. I have already debated that with the Minister, who has answered my outstanding parliamentary questions, for which I am grateful. The roll-out of Airwave is proving extremely problematic and is causing several forces immense concern and cost, which is deflecting them from fighting crime and from using Airwave in that fight. 
 New subsection (2C) in clause 5 specifies that 
'' 'equipment' includes—(a) vehicles; and (b) headgear and protective and other clothing.''
 The hon. Lady's amendment would add further items. The effect of the clause will be to remove information and communications equipment from regulatory powers. It is perfectly valid to want regulatory powers relating to equipment, and the Government have adopted that position, but one either specifies things or one does not. Bill after Bill produces the same debate. As with any list, something is always left off, but it is odd that in producing such a small list of an (a) and a (b), information and communications equipment has disappeared from new subsections (2) and (3) of the twice-amended section 53 of the 1996 Act.

George Osborne: Perhaps a possible explanation is that by ring-fencing £500 million the Government have already stuffed the mouths of police authorities with gold to force them to accept Airwave. Regulations are not required, because money has been used.

James Paice: That is of course a possible conclusion to draw from such an omission. As I said, the amendment is only exploratory at this stage because I am puzzled about the clause. I came equipped with a catalogue of Airwave problems, but I shall not detain the Committee by going through it. The Minister realises that we have a serious problem in rolling out Airwave, which illustrates that a Government of any complexion should not get too involved in technical arrangements. It might have been better to have simply specified Airwave and left it entirely to the forces rather than the Government getting involved in it. However, that is a slightly separate matter. The issue is whether we have an exhaustive list and, if we do, why information and communication equipment is not on it. I look forward to the Minister's explanation, which will probably be perfectly reasonable.

John Denham: I am pleased that the two amendments have come so swiftly after the intervention by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), because I get to make my speech about lawyers. In summary, a large part of my response will be that I am advised that the wording is necessary in order to cover areas where there might have been doubt. The list is not intended to be exhaustive.
 The subsection does not seek to provide a comprehensive list of categories of equipment that fall within the ambit of the regulation-making power. The clause instead relies on the common construction of the term ''equipment'', but I am advised that it is necessary to identify items that are not immediately obvious as being equipment. When we talk about items issued for public order control, we could be referring to anything from side-handled batons, handcuffs and CS sprays to riot shields and tear gas. It is the view of those who advise Ministers on the drafting of legislation that such items would conventionally spring to mind when talking about 
 equipment used by the police and, therefore, would be covered by the word ''equipment.'' 
 Information and communication equipment is even more obviously equipment. Indeed, the wording of amendment No. 79 contains the word ''equipment.'' Radios, command and control suites and IT systems are all clearly equipment. Therefore, there is no need to specify them in the provision. In moving an amendment similar to amendment No. 79 in another place, the noble Lord Dixon-Smith was quite right when he said that 
''in reality the word ''equipment'' is probably sufficient. Once one begins to create a list, it can go on ad nauseam.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2002; Vol. 632, c. 169.]
 However, when the drafting of the clause was considered in detail, the question was raised as to whether issues such as vehicles, headgear and protective clothing, for example, would spring readily to mind as police equipment, even though they are pieces of equipment that the police use in their day-to-day work. Therefore, they are specifically mentioned to avoid any argument as to whether they are clothing or means of transport rather than equipment. They are also items for which safety or public recognition implications could mean that it would be in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness that all forces use the same items of equipment. 
 I hope that the Committee will accept the explanation in the same way that I did when I was advised on the appropriate way of wording the clause by those who advise Ministers on the proper drafting of legislation.

Paul Stinchcombe: Speaking as a lawyer, I wonder if the provision would not be even clearer if the words ''for the avoidance of doubt'' were inserted in the new subsection. Otherwise, I fear that the same arguments of restrictive interpretation might apply.

John Denham: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion. There are points at which Ministers of all Administrations come to rely on legal advice and the drafting advice of parliamentary counsel.

George Osborne: It is usually disastrous.

John Denham: That may be. However, in the light of the debate, I shall discuss the matter again with my officials and advisers to ensure that we have the drafting absolutely right. I believe that there is common intent across the parties in the Committee about what the clause is intended to achieve. If we feel that it is necessary to bring forward any clarification on Report of the issues that have been raised by my hon. Friend and by Opposition Members, we will do so. If not, I hope that the Committee will accept that we have drafted the measure with the best intent and on the best advice available to us.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his comments and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: In the light of the Minister's characteristically helpful and constructive response
 on the amendments, I hope that he and his officials, when reconsidering the clause, will also take account of the significant views of the Association of Police Authorities. The association told my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and me that it is concerned that, with the bulk of police authority budgets already being spent on police and support staff pay—and also police pensions—any statutory requirement on authorities and forces to purchase or use particular equipment or adopt particular practices will mean even less scope to allocate resources to tackle local priorities.
 The Minister will be aware from the many debates that he and I have had with others in the Home Office ministerial and shadow ministerial teams that we are always referring to the huge differences between what an inner-city police force in London, Liverpool, Manchester or Birmingham might need and what rural Cumbria or Surrey might need. I share the concern expressed to us by the Association of Police Authorities that the provision should not be too prescriptive. 
 I accept what the Minister said when he quoted Lord Dixon-Smith saying that a list can go on ad nauseam. My noble Friend was absolutely right. I also accept the helpful suggestion made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) that a general phrase, such as ''for the avoidance of doubt'' might be an improvement. The Minister was helpful in agreeing to consider that again. However, I hope that he will carefully consider the wider context and whether the clause is too prescriptive and goes too far towards micro-management. Perhaps the Government will reconsider the whole matter before Report.

George Osborne: I support what my hon. Friend said. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which recently considered the Airwave project and questioned the permanent secretary to the Home Office. One of the conclusions of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee was that if local forces had been able to procure their equipment locally instead of having a national system, we would have saved about £300 million. The Home Office's argument was that Airwave, as a national system, brought additional benefits, although the Public Accounts Committee, which is an all-party Committee, was not entirely convinced. That is a good illustration of my hon. Friend's point that being over-prescriptive with police authorities and forces when acquiring equipment sometimes costs a lot of money and does not allow police authorities to be responsive to the specific needs of their areas.

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend brings to the Committee his great experience of the Public Accounts Committee, and I am grateful to him. Does he agree that in the light of that Committee's findings, it might be wiser to leave things as they are in section 53 of the Police Act 1996? The Association of Police Authorities has said that at present the Home Secretary has the power to require only that equipment used for police purposes satisfies certain design and performance requirements.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many police authorities were reluctant to take Airwave and did so only because they were given the money and told to spend it on that and nothing else.

Kevan Jones: Is it not pretty fundamental that in a small country such as the United Kingdom, individual forces need to talk to one another? Having a common communication system is sensible, as the Defence Committee recognised in its inquiry into home defence to which my right hon. Friend the Minister gave evidence yesterday.

George Osborne: The experience of both the military and the police with national communication systems has not been good. Lancashire police force, which neighbours my force in Cheshire, had loads of problems using Airwave. Greater Manchester police hope to have the communication system up and running in time for the Commonwealth games—it is one of the Government's targets—but the system is not yet operating. The equipment has many problems.

Kevan Jones: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but would he not agree that it makes sense to have a communication system that is common to each constabulary, because they have to talk to one another?

George Osborne: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, although there are several different mobile phone companies, one can still call different mobile phones. Indeed, many police officers now carry mobile phones because they find them more effective than their existing radio systems or the Airwave system. I support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath about being overly prescriptive in stating what equipment must be used by police forces in England and Wales.

John Denham: I hope that I can allay the Committee's concerns. The ability to standardise should not be equated with particular types of procurement. There are some dilemmas, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham is right.
 This is one of those weeks. Yesterday I was up in front of the Defence Committee dealing with issues such as counter-terrorism, civil contingency and so forth. That Committee had been highly critical of the way in which the Government previously allowed fire authorities to procure radio systems on a different basis to that of the police. It is not for me to anticipate what the Defence Committee will say in its report, but I think that it will welcome the fact that the decision has been revisited in the light of the events of 11 September. 
 There are issues on which, even within the House and the Select Committee system, people look to the Government to deal with standardisation where appropriate. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has a great interest in and considerable knowledge of information technology-related issues in the police service. He resisted the temptation to get into a big discussion about Airwave, and I will do the same. However, I predict that when—in the Select Committee or elsewhere—we examine the roll-out of Airwave, we will learn from the forces with the earliest experience of implementation plans that 
 they were left to individual police forces to develop. There is a difference between forces that had a single contractual approach to everything—from handsets to control centres to the system itself—and those that decided to buy the handsets separately and have a separate control centre contract and the Airwave system. There are lessons to be learned, but I will not go too far down that line. 
 The intention of the clause has been broadly welcomed. The Association of Chief Police Officers advocated a more corporate approach in the document that it published in September. It states that in 
''moving from a fragmented legacy (old systems) environment which inhibits significant structural change to a unified national Police information systems environment which meets the needs of Citizens, the Service, operational staff and Government . . . will yield very significant operational and quality of service benefits.''
 In a 1998 report on officer safety, HMIC said: 
''Of concern is the lack of consultation in some instances between forces and other agencies when determining the most suitable officer safety equipment. There are cases where the in-depth, expert research carried out by the Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) appears not to have been given due weight and preference has been afforded to the advice from what could best be described as ''well-meaning overnight experts''.''
 We can all take the warnings that have been reasonably raised that neither public nor private sector procurements are without fault. That should not, however, deflect us from the central aim of the measure, which is to bring about an appropriate degree of standardisation where it is necessary to promote the general efficiency and effectiveness of the police forces maintained for England and Wales. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Regulation of procedures and practices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: It is important to reflect on the fact that the Association of Police Authorities briefed my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and me on the basis that it has a similar worry to the one that I expressed about the previous clause. The association considers that clause 6 will increase significantly central control over policing. It said that it welcomed recognition of that in another place and the fact that the Government accepted some of the concerns expressed by Lord Dixon-Smith and others, and tabled some amendments.
 Reference to operational matters was removed in another place. Regulations can now be made only when they assist forces to collaborate and HMIC has now to certify that the regulations are ''in the national interest''. We welcome those significant changes and obviously the Government are content to accept the logic of what was proposed by many noble Lords. Even taking account of the changes that have been made, however, the Association of Police Authorities 
 has still expressed some worry. It is important to put that on the record.

John Denham: This is an occasion when the process of parliamentary scrutiny has done the job well. We have made no secret of the fact that the Bill, while delivering the powers that we wanted, also delivered powers that went far wider. I admit that there was a gap between what we said we wanted to do and what the clause would allow. Given the safeguards, the changes that we introduced in the light of that criticism have made it about right.
 The examples that we have used are primarily of a cross-border nature, when the adoption of different practices by different police forces undermines the total effort. The national intelligence model is more than an IT system. It deals with how information is gathered and analysed, and how police officers are deployed in an effective and targeted manner. Criminals cross police authority boundaries, and if one force is using the national intelligence model and another is not, the effectiveness of both forces in dealing with serious crime can be weakened. I am enormously encouraged by the progress that is now being made by forces throughout the country in adopting the national intelligence model. Some of the debates—even of a year ago—about whether it was the best way forward seem to be falling behind us. 
 Towards the end of last year, members of the Police Federation of England and Wales cited a second example. There are cross-border agreements between police forces to help each other in times of civil disturbance. The nature and level of training for public order disturbances can vary from force to force. It is a worry if someone is drafted in suddenly from a neighbouring force to deal with a difficult situation on the ground who is used to different command structures or approaches. I am not sure that the situation is as serious as I may have suggested, but the principle of the clause is that we may wish to deal with the way in which practices are carried out. It is not an open-ended power for the Home Secretary to pick and choose what he wants to do. He must receive advice, and matters are subject to a tough test, but they must be in the national interest, not the interests of individual forces. Given those safeguards and the fact that we have noted the reservations of the police authorities, we have got the clause about right. That is probably the view of the police service as a whole. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Equivalent provision for NCIS and NCS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Denham: The clause will bring schedule 1 into effect and ensure that equivalent provision is made for codes of practice for chief officers under clause 2 and directions to police authorities under clause 4 to apply to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, and similarly that provisions under clauses 2, 4 and 5 will
 apply to the National Crime Squad. Clauses 5 and 6, which cover regulation of equipment and regulation of procedures and practices, do not apply to NCIS because it is not an operational policing organisation. If the reintroduced clause is successfully accepted, the same will apply.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Four o'clock till Tuesday 11 June at half-past Four o'clock.